Criminology

Assignment
2020

Biological
theory of
Criminology
Project Assignment for
Semester X

Submitted to:

Ms. Shikha Dhiman

Submitted by:
Harshil Sood
Roll No. 197/15
B. Com. LLB
Section D
 CRIMINOLOGY PROJECT- BIOLOGICAL THEORY OF CRIMINOLOGY

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to my teacher Ms. Shikha

Dhiman who gave me this wonderful opportunity to work on the topic
“Biological theories of Criminology” which involved exhaustive research
enabling me to learn many new things.

Secondly I would also like to thank my friends who helped me a lot in finalizing
this project within the limited time frame.

Harshil Sood

1
 CRIMINOLOGY PROJECT- BIOLOGICAL THEORY OF CRIMINOLOGY

INDEX

S. No. Particulars Pg. No.

1. Introduction 3

2. Phrenology 5

3. Lomroso’s Theory of Born 6

Criminal

4. Enrico Ferri’s theory of 9

Crime

5. Raffaele Garofalo’s 10
Doctrine of Natural Crimes

6. Sheldon’s Somatotype 11
Theory

7. Jukes and Kallikaks 13

8. Conclusion 14

2
 CRIMINOLOGY PROJECT- BIOLOGICAL THEORY OF CRIMINOLOGY

INTRODUCTION
There is no one ‘cause’ of crime. Crime is a highly complex phenomenon that changes across
cultures and across time. Activities that are legal in one country (e.g. alcohol consumption in
the UK) are sometimes illegal in others (e.g. strict Muslim countries). As cultures change over
time, behaviours that once were not criminalised may become criminalised (and then
decriminalised again – e.g. alcohol prohibition in the USA). As a result, there is no simple
answer to the question ‘what is crime?’ and therefore no single answer to ‘what causes crime?’
Different types of crime often have their own distinct causes.

Many theories have been developed to explain criminal behaviour. While some theories are not
as common, others have evolved and are used in many criminal studies today. Modern
criminologists combine the most germane aspects of sociology, psychology, anthropology, and
biological theories to advance their understanding of criminal behaviour.

Is criminal behaviour learned? Is it innate? Can punishment deter evil acts? Over generations,
biological theories of crime have attempted to answer these questions. It was once generally
accepted that man operates on the basis of free will and rational thought when choosing what
and what not to do. But that simplistic view has given way to far more complicated theories as
an array of scientific disciplines have been applied to the study of criminal behaviour. Today,
biological theories of crime attempt to explain criminal behaviours through the lens of factors
that are largely beyond an individual’s control.

All early theories of crime were biological. These dominated the criminological thinking after
1870s. Indeed until the early 20th century, biological theories and criminology were virtually
synonymous. But then biological theories were pushed aside by sociological explanations of
criminal behaviour. Biological theorizing was not dead however, but only dormant. Even in
1960s, when sociological deviance theories were at the height of their influence, biological
criminology was staging a comeback. Developing slowly at first and emerging mainly in
genetics, neuroscience, and psychology, it gathered momentum as the century came to a close.1

1
Nicole Rafter, The Criminal Brain: Understanding Biological Theories of Crime, 2 nd Ed(2016), Introduction.,
p-(i)

3
 CRIMINOLOGY PROJECT- BIOLOGICAL THEORY OF CRIMINOLOGY

Biological theories of crime causation are based on the belief that criminals are physiologically
different from non-criminals. The cause of crime is biological inferiority.

They advocate that a criminal’s innate physiological makeup produces certain physical or
genetic characteristics that distinguish criminals from non-criminals.

Thus, biological theories within the field of criminology attempt to explain behaviours contrary
to societal expectations through examination of individual characteristics. These theories are
categorized within a paradigm called positivism (also known as determinism), which asserts
that behaviours, including law-violating behaviours, are determined by factors largely beyond
individual control. 2

The foundations of the biological variant of the predestined actor model of crime and criminal
behaviour – or biological positivism – can be located primarily in the work of Cesare
Lombroso, Enrico Ferri and Raffaele Garofalo. These early and highly influential biological
criminologists – or the Italian School as they are usually collectively known – argued that
criminology should focus primarily on the scientific study of criminals and criminal behaviour.
3

Both their methodology and some findings seem highly simplistic and even laughable by the
modern standards but they nevertheless contributed towards establishing an enduring scientific
tradition, which has become increasingly sophisticated over the years.

The biological theories are based on the following main principles:4

i. The basic determinants of human behaviour, including criminal tendencies, are, to a

considerable degree, constitutionally or genetically based.

ii. The basic determinants of human behaviour may be passed on from generation to
generation.

2
J. Mitchell Miller, 21st Century Criminology: A Reference Handbook, Sage Publications, Volume 2,1 st
ed(2009), p-184
3
Roger Hopkins Burke, An Introduction to Criminological Theory, William Publications, 3 rd Ed, 2009, p-65.
4
Biological Roots of Criminal Behaviour, Prentice Hall, Criminology Today,
http://wps.prenhall.com/chet_schmalleger_crimtoday_3/13/3544/907274.cw/index.html%20parentloc, accessed
on 12th March, 2017.

4
 CRIMINOLOGY PROJECT- BIOLOGICAL THEORY OF CRIMINOLOGY

iii. Much of human conduct is fundamentally rooted in instinctive behavioural responses

characteristic of biological organisms everywhere. iv. The interplay between heredity,
biology and social environment provides the nexus for realistic consideration of crime
causation.

The early biological theories of crime assumed that crime is not rationally reasoned behaviour
that occurs unless punishment is applied, but is a result of inborn abnormalities.5

PHRENOLOGY6
Phrenology, from the Greek words phren, meaning “mind,” and logos, meaning “knowledge,”
is based on the belief that human behaviour originated in the brain. This was a major departure
from earlier beliefs that focused on the four humors as the source of emotions and behaviours:
(1) sanguine (blood), seated in the liver and associated with courage and love; (2) choleric
(yellow bile), seated in the gall bladder and associated with anger and bad temper; (3)
melancholic (black bile), seated in the spleen and associated with depression, sadness, and
irritability; and (4) phlegmatic (phlegm), seated in the brain and lungs and associated with
calmness and lack of excitability. Theoretically and practically relocating responsibility for
behaviour from various organs to the brain represented a major step in the development of the
scientific study of behaviour and in the development of biological explanations of crime and
criminality.

Franz Joseph Gall (1758–1828)

Around 1800, Franz Joseph Gall, a German neuro-anatomist and physiologist who pioneered
study of the human brain as the source of mental faculties, developed the practice of
cranioscopy, a technique by which to infer behaviours and characteristics from external
examination of the skull (cranium). According to Gall, a person’s strengths, weaknesses,
morals, proclivities, character, and personality could be determined by physical characteristics
of his or her skull.

5
Human Conflict and Cooperation, Theories of Criminology,
http://brianpaciotti.com/Lecture%209%20FALL%2005.pdf accessed on 12 th March, 2017.
6
Supra at 2. P-186.

5
 CRIMINOLOGY PROJECT- BIOLOGICAL THEORY OF CRIMINOLOGY

Gall mapped out the location of 27 “brain organs” on the human skull. A bump or depression
in a particular area of the skull would indicate a strength or weakness in that particular area.

For example, several areas of Gall’s map of the skull were believed to correspond to that
person’s tendencies to engage in criminal or deviant acts. One area corresponded to the
tendency to commit murder; another area corresponded to the tendency to steal. Although not
widely accepted in Europe, the English elite (and others) used Gall’s ideas to justify the
oppression of individuals whose skulls had bumps or depressions in the wrong areas. The
practice also was widely accepted in America between 1820 and 1850. Although crude, and
somewhat ridiculous by today’s standards, Gall’s efforts had significant impact on subsequent
research that attempted to identify the brain as the origin of behaviour. Although similar to
physiognomy in that it tried to make inferences about character and behaviour from outward
characteristics, cranioscopy attempted to correlate those outward physical characteristics to
internal physical characteristics (i.e., brain shape), which was a significant advance.

Johann Spurzheim (1776–1832)

Spurzheim, a German physician and student of Gall’s, actually coined the term phrenology to
replace cranioscopy. Spurzheim also expanded the map of the brain organs, developed a
hierarchical system of the organs, and created a model “phrenology bust” that depicted the
location of the brain organs.

While the German scientists were focusing attention on the brain as an important determinant
of individual behaviour, various other scholars were theorizing about the development of man
as a biological organism; about the nature of social and political organizations; and about the
place of man, as an individual, within those organizations. The synthesis of these ideas would
significantly advance the progress of research related to biological perspectives of behaviour.

LOMROSO’S THEORY OF BORN CRIMINAL

Cesare Lombroso (1836–1909) was both a psychiatrist at the University of Turin and a
physician employed in the Italian penal system. In 1875 he published his most famous work

L’Uomo Delinquente (On Criminal Man) and the primary – and most significant – theme in
this early work is that criminals represent a physical type distinct from non-criminals.

6
 CRIMINOLOGY PROJECT- BIOLOGICAL THEORY OF CRIMINOLOGY

Cesare Lombroso, who is considered the father of modern criminology, based his ideas on
Charles Darwin`s theory of the survival of the species and viewed criminals as throwbacks to
an earlier state of human existence.
These individuals were not as physically or mentally advanced as the rest of society. Lombroso
(1876) identified a number of atavistic 6 , or ape-like, qualities that generally reflected the
physical features of the apes from whom man was a descendant.

In a study of incarcerated Italian offenders and Italian soldiers Lombroso (1876) noted that
more than 40 percent of the criminals had five or more atavistic traits. These “born criminals”
were a direct result of the lack of evolutionary progression found in the person. The remaining
criminals fell into categories of “criminaloids” and “insane” criminals. Criminaloids were
individuals who entered criminal activity due to a variety of factors including mental, physical,
and social conditions that, when occurring at the same time, would trigger deviant behaviour
(Vold and Bernard, 1986). Insane criminals included idiots and mentally deranged individuals.7

Lombroso determined that serious offenders inherited their criminal traits and were “born
criminals,” atavistic throwbacks to earlier evolutionary ancestors. They had strong jaws, big
teeth, bulging foreheads, and long arms. These types of offenders constituted about one third
of all criminals. The remaining two thirds were “criminaloids” (minor offenders) who only
occasionally commit crime .9

Thus, Lombroso now classified criminals in four main categories. First, born criminals are
simply those who can be distinguished by their physical atavistic characteristics. Second,
insane criminals are those including idiots, imbeciles, paranoiacs, epileptics and alcoholics.
Third, occasional criminals or criminaloids are those who commit crimes in response to
opportunities when these might be available – as identified by rational actor theorists – but
importantly in contrast to that alternative tradition have innate traits that predispose them to
commit criminal behaviour. Fourth, criminals of passion are those motivated to commit crime
because of anger, love or honour. 8

6
Atavism refers to Lombroso's theory that while most individuals evolve, some devolve, becoming primitive or
"atavistic". These evolutionary "throwbacks" are "born criminals," the most violent criminals in society. Born
criminals could be identified through their atavistic stigmata.
7
Elsevier, Chapter 3: Criminological Theories,
http://booksite.elsevier.com/samplechapters/9781455778928/Chapter_3.pdf, accessed on 17th March, 2017. 9
Supra at 2. P-190.
8
Supra at 3. P 65-66

7
 CRIMINOLOGY PROJECT- BIOLOGICAL THEORY OF CRIMINOLOGY

Visible “Stigmata”
• Asymmetrical face
• Large monkey-like ears

• Large lips
• Receding chin
• Twisted nose
• Long arms
• Skin wrinkles
Lombroso’s theory motivated others to search for characteristics that might cause individuals
to commit crime (e.g., inherited traits, physical abnormalities, body type, feeblemindedness,
biochemical imbalances).

Therefore, according to Lombroso’s theory of “born criminal” the criminal comes into the
world with a bodily constitution that causes him to violate the laws of modern society.9

Lombroso’s conclusions were challenged and refuted by Charles Goring (1870–1919), who
wrote The English Convict in 1913. In a carefully controlled statistical comparison of more
than 3,000 criminals and non-criminals, Goring found no significant physical differences
between the two populations except height and weight (criminals were slightly smaller). His
findings essentially discredited Lombroso’s idea of the born criminal, although research into
the search for criminal types continued. 12

Lombroso undoubtedly used primitive methodology based on very limited data and a very
simplistic use of statistics. Moreover, he did not have a general theory of crime that would
enable him to organise his data in any meaningful way (Taylor, Walton and Young, 1973).
Criminals were simply those who had broken the law and the problem thus appeared
deceptively straightforward. All one needed to do was locate the differences between people
that produce variances in their tendencies to violate the law.

Most today consider the approach of Lombroso to have been simplistic and naïve but we should
observe that he did make three important contributions to the development of modern
criminological theory. First, he directed the study of crime away from the armchair theorising

9
Ronald Akers, Criminological theories, Roxbury Pub Co; 2nd edition (August 1996), p-36-37 12
Supra at 2. p-190

8
 CRIMINOLOGY PROJECT- BIOLOGICAL THEORY OF CRIMINOLOGY

that had characterised the early proponents of the rational actor model towards the scientific
study of the criminal. Second, although his methodology was rather primitive, he demonstrated
the importance of examining clinical and historical records. Third, and most significantly, he
recognised the need for multi-factor explanations of crime that include not only hereditary, but
social, cultural and economic factors. These latter important factors were also emphasised by
his successors in the early biological tradition Enrico Ferri and Raffaele Garofalo. 10

ENRICO FERRI’S THEORY OF CRIME

Lombroso’s work started other researchers on the path to determine a hereditary source for
criminal behaviour. His student, Enrico Ferri (1856–1929), disagreed with Lombroso’s focus
on the physiological, preferring instead to examine the interactive effects of physical factors,
individual factors, and social factors and to blame criminality on a lack of moral sensibility.

Enrico Ferri was born in Mantua, Italy, in 1856. Ferri studied under Lombroso at the University
of Turin because of his belief that, “in order to formulate principles concerning crimes,
penalties and criminals, it is first necessary to study... criminals and prisons, since facts should
precede theories.”

He significantly argued that criminal behaviour could be explained by studying the interaction
of a range of factors: physical factors such as race, geography and temperature; individual
factors such as age, sex and psychological variables; and social factors such as population,
religion and culture (Ferri, 1895). He rather radically proposed that improving the social
conditions of the poor and to could control crime that end advocated the provision of subsidised
housing, birth control and public recreation facilities and it was a vision that fitted well with
the socialist views of Ferri. 11

For Ferri, the positivist school cultivated a “science of criminality and of a social defence
against it.” This science involved “an individual fact (somatopsychological condition of the
offender) by anthropology, psychology, and criminal psychopathology; and a social fact
(physical and social environmental conditions) by criminal statistics, monographic studies, and
comparative ethnographic studies for the purpose of systematizing social defence measures (a)
of a preventive nature, either indirect or remote (through ‘penal substitutes’) or direct or

10
Supra at 3. P-66.
11
Ibid.

9
 CRIMINOLOGY PROJECT- BIOLOGICAL THEORY OF CRIMINOLOGY

proximate (by the police); or (b) of a repressive nature through criminal law and procedure,
techniques of prison treatment, and aftercare.” Ferri called this science criminal sociology.12

RAFFAELE GAROFALO’S DOCTRINE OF NATURAL CRIMES

Another Italian contemporary, Raffaele Garofalo (1851–1934), developed a theory of natural
crime, focusing on those acts that could be prevented or reduced by punishment. Garofalo also
suggested the elimination of individuals who posed a threat to society, to improve the quality
of the society and ensure its survival. Like Ferri, he believed crime was more the result of a
lack in moral sensibilities rather than a physiological problem. 13

Raffaele Garofalo (1852–1934) was both an academic and a practising lawyer remembered for
his doctrine of ‘natural crimes’ where he argued that because society is a ‘natural body’, crimes
are offences ‘against the law of nature’. Criminal behaviour is therefore unnatural.

The ‘rules of nature’ are the rules of right conduct revealed to human beings through their
powers of reasoning. For Garofalo, the proper rules of conduct come from thinking about what
rules should be allowed or prohibited and he identified acts that he argued no society could
refuse to recognise as criminal and, consequently, repress by punishment.

Garofalo argued that these natural crimes violated two basic human sentiments which are found
among people of all ages, namely the sentiments of probity and pity. Pity is the sentiment of
revulsion against the voluntary infliction of suffering on others, while probity refers to respect
for the property rights of others. Garofalo argued that these sentiments are basic moral
sensibilities that appear in the more advanced forms of civilised society and proposed that some
members of society may have a higher than average sense of morality because they are superior
members of the group. True criminals, on the other hand, lack properly developed altruistic
sentiments and have psychic or moral anomalies that can be inherited.

Garofalo identified four criminal categories, each one distinct from the others because of
deficiencies in the basic sentiments of pity and probity. The first category, murderers are totally
lacking in both pity and probity and will kill and steal whenever the opportunity arises. Lesser

12
Chapter 3: Explanations for Criminal Behaviour, Criminology(2nd ed, 2008) Leonard Glick,
http://www.ablongman.com/html/productinfo/glick/images/61832_CH03_058-085-r.pdf, accessed on 12th
March, 2017
13
Supra at 2, p-190

10
 CRIMINOLOGY PROJECT- BIOLOGICAL THEORY OF CRIMINOLOGY

criminals are however more difficult to identify and this category is subdivided on the basis of
whether criminals lack sentiments of either pity or probity. Thus, the second category, violent
criminals lack pity and can be influenced by environmental factors such as the consumption of
alcohol, or the fact that criminality is endemic to their particular population. The third category,
thieves suffer from a lack of probity, a condition that might be more the product of social factors
than is the case for criminals in the other categories. His fourth category contains sexual
criminals, some of whom will be classified among the violent criminals because they lack pity.
Others require a separate category because their actions stem from a low level of moral energy
rather than a lack of pity.

Garofalo reasoned that criminal behaviour demonstrated a failure to live by the basic human
sentiments necessary for the survival of society. Criminals should therefore be eliminated in
order to secure that survival. Life imprisonment or overseas transportation was proposed for
lesser criminals. 14

SHELDON’S SOMATOTYPE THEORY

After World War II, research into the biological roots of crime persisted. Following in the
footsteps of Lombroso in 1876, Kretschmer in 1925, and Hooten in 1939, William H. Sheldon
(1898–1977) attempted to document a direct link between biology (specifically, physique) and
personality (specifically, crime) through the development of a classification system of
personality patterns and corresponding physical builds (Sheldon, 1940).

Running contrary to prevailing sociological emphases on the environmental correlates of crime,

Sheldon chose to instead employ beliefs about Darwin’s survival of the fittest, Lombroso’s
criminal man, and Galton’s eugenics. Sheldon argued for an “ideal” type, in which perfectly
formed physique joined perfectly formed temperament and disposition. Any combination that
deviated from this ideal was associated with disorders of both personality and behaviour. He
claimed a physical basis for all variations in personality and body build.

During the 1940s, Sheldon developed and tested his classification system, known as
somatotyping. He created three classifications: (1) ectomorphs, who were thin, delicate, flat,

14
Supra at 3, p- 67

11
 CRIMINOLOGY PROJECT- BIOLOGICAL THEORY OF CRIMINOLOGY

and linear; (2) endomorphs, who were heavy or obese, with a round, soft shape; and (3)
mesomorphs, who were rectangular, muscular, and sturdy.

In subsequent studies of juvenile delinquency, Sheldon argued that mesomorphic types were
more likely to engage in crime, ectomorphs were more likely to commit suicide, and
endomorphs were more likely to be mentally ill. Although Sheldon linked physical and
psychological characteristics and concluded that both were the result of heredity, he failed to
support that conclusion with valid statistical methods. Also during the late 1940s and early
1950s, Sheldon Glueck and Eleanor Glueck conducted longitudinal research into juvenile
delinquency using control groups and added to Sheldon’s list of somatotypes. They suggested
the addition of a fourth type they called balanced. In their research, they found support for
Sheldon’s proposition that mesomorphs are more likely to commit crime. Among the juveniles
they studied, the mesomorphic somatotype was disproportionately represented among
delinquents by a ratio of nearly two to one as compared with non-delinquent controls. In
addition, whereas only about 14% of delinquents could be classified as ectomorphs, nearly 40%
of the non-delinquent controls could be placed in this category. Instead of concluding that body
type led to delinquency, the Gluecks (1956) concluded that participation in delinquency (for
which individuals are more likely to get arrested) may be facilitated by having a mesomorphic
body type rather than an ectomorphic, endomorphic, or balanced body type. 15

Sheldon thus, produced the first modern systematic linking of body traits with criminal
behaviour but was at the same time highly influenced by his predecessors in this tradition. He
significantly shifted attention from adults to offending male youths, studying 200 between 15
and 21 years of age in an attempt to link physique to temperament, intelligence and offending
behaviour, classifying the physiques of the boys by measuring the degree to which they
possessed a combination of three different body components. First, endomorphs tended to be
soft, fat people; second, mesomorphs were of muscular and athletic build; and third,
ectomorphs had a skinny, flat and fragile physique. Sheldon concluded that most offenders
tended towards mesomorphy and because the youths came from parents who were offenders,
the factors that produce criminal behaviour are inherited. 16

15
Supra at 2, p-193-194
16
Supra at 3, p-74

12
 CRIMINOLOGY PROJECT- BIOLOGICAL THEORY OF CRIMINOLOGY

JUKES AND KALLIKAKS

In 1877, Richard Dugdale (1841– 1883) published The Jukes: A Study in Crime, Pauperism,
Disease and Heredity, in which he traced the descendants of matriarch Ada Jukes and found
that most of the Jukes family members (although they were not all biologically related) were
criminals, prostitutes, or welfare recipients. Another family study, published in 1912 by Henry
H. Goddard (1866–1957), traced 1,000 descendants of a man named Martin Kallikak,
comparing his descendants who were conceived within wedlock to a woman of “noble birth”
to his descendants who came from the bloodline he conceived out of wedlock with another
woman, one of ill repute. Goddard concluded (although he later retracted his conclusions) that
the legitimate bloodline was “whole- some,” whereas the illegitimate bloodline was
characterized by “feeblemindedness.” 17

17
Ibid, p-191-192

13
 CRIMINOLOGY PROJECT- BIOLOGICAL THEORY OF CRIMINOLOGY

CONCLUSION
The Early biological theories were severely criticized for their inadequacies to explain the
causes of crime and single mindedness on one factor i.e the crime gene is inherited. These
theories gave insufficient attention to social, environmental and other significant factors that
lead to a person committing an offence. They had little empirical support and hence their
methodologies were weak. Slowly, social winds changed and the biological theories lost their
charm.

Early biological proponents of the predestined actor model fundamentally assumed that
offenders differ in some way from non-offenders. They then problematically observed that
offenders appeared to differ among themselves and committed different types of crime.
Moreover, offenders who committed the same type of crime appeared alike in terms of
important characteristics. The solution to this problem was to subdivide the criminal population
into types – each of which would be internally comparable with respect to the causes of crime
– and different from other types on the same dimensions.

However, Biological theories have evolved significantly with advances in our theoretical
understanding of human behaviour and in our technological capabilities of measuring human
biological characteristics and processes.

To conclude, it can be said that the early biological theories, despite anomalies served as a
stepping-stone towards the development of modern theories of criminology. With the constant
innovations in scientific human thought, the theorists have tried to do away with the
inadequacies and explain better the causes of crime, keeping in mind all the factors that have
bearing on the same.

14